DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Focal length info in submissions
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/23/2008 10:42:36 AM · #1
I think it might be helpful if they make it obligatory to add this info to the challenge submissions too. We have the aperture info,the ISO number and shutter speed. The focal lenght of the lens at the moment of taking the photo would be helpful to others as they could evaluate the sharpness of the lense at certain focal lenghts. This is very useful info for new users of a specific lense.
What you all think?!
 07/23/2008 10:46:56 AM · #2
I agree and why not also make it mandatory to submit ISO, aperture and shutter speed when submitting to a challenge. It's disappointing when you admire a photo and want that information and it's not there.
 07/23/2008 08:26:46 PM · #3
Any more thoughts!?
 07/23/2008 08:34:17 PM · #4
A lot of people don't know that information, and they don't care about it either. A lot of times I have to go rooting around in my EXIF data to acquire that information, and sometimes I'm too lazy to do it and I just guesstimate. A lot of people just don't pay much attention to technical minutiae. The fields are there if you care to populate them, but it would be (IMO) a mistake to require that. I mean, what next? If someone gets the wrong data in, they are DQ'd?

My attitude; be happy when the information is provided, don't sweat it when it is not...

R.
 07/23/2008 08:39:49 PM · #5
I don't think it should be required, but a field for the focal length like those for aperture, iso, and shutter would be nice. It could be another useful tool for learning why a shot looks a certain way, works or doesn't work, and stuff like that, but I agree that requiring that info would not be the best idea. Just my thoughts.
 07/23/2008 09:06:44 PM · #6
and if I shoot at, say, 200mm and HEAVILY crop what should I say? :-)
 07/23/2008 09:09:17 PM · #7
very good point...i don't know.
 07/23/2008 09:10:56 PM · #8
Originally posted by robs:
and if I shoot at, say, 200mm and HEAVILY crop what should I say? :-)


Honey I need a bigger lens...
 07/23/2008 09:11:10 PM · #9
It's an interest tidbit to know for certain pics but once a shot is resized, posting the focal length would not give a good idea about lens sharpness quality.
 08/07/2008 07:54:01 AM · #10
Originally posted by robs:
and if I shoot at, say, 200mm and HEAVILY crop what should I say? :-)


I currently place details like "minor crop" or "huge crop" in the description field. Of course this entire field is often N/A and this dissappoints me way more than any missing camera settings. This often where I learned that someone used an interesting PP step or studio setup to get something that I liked in the photo. On the whole I think I have learned a lot more from photo descriptions that any other area of this site.
 08/07/2008 08:26:12 AM · #11
Originally posted by DarkRider:
Originally posted by robs:
and if I shoot at, say, 200mm and HEAVILY crop what should I say? :-)


Honey I need a bigger lens...

LOL! :-D
 08/07/2008 08:34:24 AM · #12
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DarkRider:
Originally posted by robs:
and if I shoot at, say, 200mm and HEAVILY crop what should I say? :-)


Honey I need a bigger lens...

LOL! :-D


Tsk Tsk
08/07/2008 09:11:18 AM · #13
I always put that info into my challenge entries, but I don't bother with it for most portfolio images. I agree that focal length would be a useful thing to know when looking at someone else's entries.
 08/07/2008 09:30:01 AM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A lot of people don't know that information, and they don't care about it either. A lot of times I have to go rooting around in my EXIF data to acquire that information, and sometimes I'm too lazy to do it and I just guesstimate. A lot of people just don't pay much attention to technical minutiae. The fields are there if you care to populate them, but it would be (IMO) a mistake to require that. I mean, what next? If someone gets the wrong data in, they are DQ'd?

My attitude; be happy when the information is provided, don't sweat it when it is not...

R.


Since the thrust of this site is LEARNING, developing skills, and SHARING-More-Info

I totally agree that those four bits of information should be required. I'm sure we all have access to the exif data. No, I would not disqualify for that info being incorrect. Let the individual share as accurate information as they can.

That can be a good starting point to shoot a similar scene, although not always the best, since there a numereous variables. Lighting is quite hard to repeat at times with 100 percent accuracy, except maybe in a studio.

Focal lengths can be helpful in evaluating many Zoom lenses and DOF.
Maybe Langdon would do a survey on this, he has done surveys before.
 08/07/2008 10:12:08 AM · #15
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
A lot of people don't know that information, and they don't care about it either. A lot of times I have to go rooting around in my EXIF data to acquire that information, and sometimes I'm too lazy to do it and I just guesstimate. A lot of people just don't pay much attention to technical minutiae. The fields are there if you care to populate them, but it would be (IMO) a mistake to require that. I mean, what next? If someone gets the wrong data in, they are DQ'd?

My attitude; be happy when the information is provided, don't sweat it when it is not...

R.


I must say I completely disagree with you (once again!). If I though that way, I would say that the aperture, ISO setting, shutter speed should not be then required.

So, yes, I think the information about the focal length would be nice to have while one submits a picture. But I will go further on insisting that the original picture (no crop and reduced to 640 x 426 or 426 x 640 or something comparable) should be submitted as well as the post-treated picture. The idea beyond that would be that comparisons will be so much easier that way.

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 10:13:06.
 08/07/2008 11:05:35 AM · #16
It continues to blow my mind that EXIF data is not automatically used to prefill the shot data if you choose to include it.
A "Is Cropped" tickbox would help any misleading focal lengths due to cropping.
This is also something I think is long overdue.
The site could also automatically convert the focal length to 35mm equivalent to take into account all the different crop factors so you can compare apples to apples when looking at a 50mm shot with a D3 vs. a 50mm shot w/ a 40D.
 08/07/2008 11:24:10 AM · #17
Originally posted by Techo:
It's an interest tidbit to know for certain pics but once a shot is resized, posting the focal length would not give a good idea about lens sharpness quality.

Exactly, so what's the point? I guess if people want to post focal length (and had a field for filling in the data), they could choose to do so. Certainly not something that needs to be mandatory.
 08/07/2008 11:28:44 AM · #18
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
... I will go further on insisting that the original picture (no crop and reduced to 640 x 426 or 426 x 640 or something comparable) should be submitted as well as the post-treated picture. The idea beyond that would be that comparisons will be so much easier that way.

Nice thought in principle as a learning tool, however, it shouldn't be mandatory for this. I think it should be the photographer's right to show only the final product (challenge entry) if that's all they want to display. Some things are better left unseen. :-)
 08/07/2008 11:57:09 AM · #19
Certainly the more information the better.
Certainly this should be optional.
Certainly this might be made easier by including focal length tick box, and maybe even a place for an original thumbnail. Howsomever people do find a way to share these details if they want to; often I would like to do this but lack the foreplanning to get it all together in time for submission which I generally delay in the fantasy life I lead hoping to get either a better shot or a better tweak at the last minute.
 08/07/2008 12:13:05 PM · #20
Well, some people here don't use DSLRs that record all that data--some point and shoots don't support that, and some pretty amazing images would be blocked if it was mandatory.

Seems like a bit too much emphasis on numbers rather than the image itself to me. But, as a data driven engineer, I find that I get enough of that at work, and not paying too much attention to that after work and in my photography is kind of liberating.

I think the numbers are interesting to some, but can't see why they should be mandatory at all.
 08/07/2008 12:27:20 PM · #21
Better yet get rid of the stupid A$$ 150k/200k limits and require entering a non exif stripped image and have the software fill in the fields.
 08/07/2008 04:07:33 PM · #22
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
... I will go further on insisting that the original picture (no crop and reduced to 640 x 426 or 426 x 640 or something comparable) should be submitted as well as the post-treated picture. The idea beyond that would be that comparisons will be so much easier that way.

Nice thought in principle as a learning tool, however, it shouldn't be mandatory for this. I think it should be the photographer's right to show only the final product (challenge entry) if that's all they want to display. Some things are better left unseen. :-)


My policy is quite simple and I would like to see something genuine and representative from what I has been captured by the camera rather than an 'artificial' work, which looks very polished, but looks completely unnatural to the eyes (I least mine).

I strongly believe that comparing both original and post-treated pictures will give a much better idea about the quality of a shot.

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 16:08:26.
 08/07/2008 04:34:23 PM · #23
Struggling with msieglerfr's last post's last sentence: "the quality of the shot" meaning the original file? If that is all this is about, maybe we should have zero processing, but I think that is not exactly what is meant; though I probably share the writer's preferences, though considerably less vehemently than when I joined dpc and had yet to use even USM, I am more and more aware that ALL we are dealing with is illusion anyway, and it is the quality of the illusion that speaks or fails to speak, and this is liberating even if it does not entirely change my preferences. (I am wise but weak).
 08/07/2008 05:03:39 PM · #24
In another thread, I gave an example of what could be a comparison between the original (straight from the camera) and the post-treated digital photographs.

link

Cheers,

Max
 08/07/2008 05:33:35 PM · #25
It's not always easy to figure out the focal length (or equivalent) from the EXIF; it seems like it's often in some proprietary code number.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:36:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:36:14 PM EDT.